Re: [PATCH v5 3/5] core.fsync: introduce granular fsync control

From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: Mar 10, 2022, 17:18 UTC
Message-ID: <xmqq4k45hgk3.fsf@gitster.g>
In-Reply-To: <CANQDOddU_WXD-6ncDGBrgpsuKT-XDGC=SeaaQTNQFdODFZ7TkQ@mail.gmail.com>

Neeraj Singh <nksingh85@gmail.com> writes:

Show 10 quoted lines

>> I am wondering if fsync_or_die() interface is abstracted well
>> enough, or we need things like "the fd is inside this directory; in
>> addition to doing the fsync of the fd, please sync the parent
>> directory as well" support before we start adding more components
>> (if there is such a need, perhaps it comes before this step).
>>
>
> I think syncing the parent directory is a separate fsyncMethod that
> would require changes across the codebase to obtain an appropriate
> directory fd. I'd prefer to treat that as a separable concern.

Yeah, that would be a sensible direction to go. If we never did the "sync the parent" thing, we do not need it in the fsyncMethod world immediately. It can be added later.

Thanks.